In Iraq and Syria, no......but in 1914 and 1939? If we hadn't in 39 we wouldn't be debating the EU now and you'd possibly find your back against a wall waiting for a bullet

I would like to put a hypothetical question- Suppose Germany had won the war, had invaded and occupied England, and that after a long lapse of time and many bitter struggles, she was finally brought to acquiesce in admitting England's right to freedom, and let England go, but not the whole of England, all but, let us say, the six southern counties. These six southern counties, those commanding the entrance to the narrow seas, Germany had singled out and insisted on holding herself with a view to weakening England as a whole, and maintaining the securing of her own communications through the Straits of Dover. Let us suppose further, that after all this had happened, Germany was engaged in a great war in which she could show that she was on the side of freedom of a number of small nations, would an Englishman who believed that his own nation had as good a right to freedom as any other, not freedom for a part merely, but freedom for the whole--would he, whilst Germany still maintained the partition of his country and occupied six counties of it, would he lead this partitioned England to join with Germany in a crusade? I do not think he would. Would he think the people of partitioned England an object of shame if they stood neutral in such circumstances? I do not think he would.

Could he not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that there is a small nation that stood alone not for one year or two, but for several hundred years against aggression; that endured spoliations, famines, massacres in endless succession; that was clubbed many times into insensibility, but that each time on returning consciousness took up the fight anew; a small nation that could never be got to accept defeat and has never surrendered her soul?

In Iraq and Syria, no......but in 1914 and 1939? If we hadn't in 39 we wouldn't be debating the EU now and you'd possibly find your back against a wall waiting for a bullet

Absolute nonsense. Germany had no intention of going to war with the British. Hitler even promised German troops to protect British overseas territories, if the British stayed out of the war. Rudolf Hess even flew into Britain on a mission of peace.

Absolute nonsense. Germany had no intention of going to war with the British. Hitler even promised German troops to protect British overseas territories, if the British stayed out of the war. Rudolf Hess even flew into Britain on a mission of peace.

Yeah right, Hitler didn't intend invading Russia either and signed a non aggression pact but still Operation Barbarossa happened.

I would like to put a hypothetical question- Suppose Germany had won the war, had invaded and occupied England, and that after a long lapse of time and many bitter struggles, she was finally brought to acquiesce in admitting England's right to freedom, and let England go, but not the whole of England, all but, let us say, the six southern counties. These six southern counties, those commanding the entrance to the narrow seas, Germany had singled out and insisted on holding herself with a view to weakening England as a whole, and maintaining the securing of her own communications through the Straits of Dover. Let us suppose further, that after all this had happened, Germany was engaged in a great war in which she could show that she was on the side of freedom of a number of small nations, would an Englishman who believed that his own nation had as good a right to freedom as any other, not freedom for a part merely, but freedom for the whole--would he, whilst Germany still maintained the partition of his country and occupied six counties of it, would he lead this partitioned England to join with Germany in a crusade? I do not think he would. Would he think the people of partitioned England an object of shame if they stood neutral in such circumstances? I do not think he would.

I've used similar examples in the past people are either too thick to see it or too biased as to not want to see it.

Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.

Yeah right, Hitler didn't intend invading Russia either and signed a non aggression pact but still Operation Barbarossa happened.

He did, you know. Read Mein Kampf, he couldn’t have made his intent any clearer if he’d had Alfred Rosenberg walking up and down the Wilhelmstrasse every day with a flashing arrow on his head pointing ‘the Urals thisaway >>>.’

Hitler had a respect for the Englsih/British after his time as a "runner" in WW1 but he was said to have regarded the English as the main enemy. He would apparently have chosen us as Allies over the Italians but we wouldn't be his allies and promised to defend Polish territorial integrity, so the mould was cast. Hardly any English politician felt they could trust Hitlers promises, our choice was be his allies or be his enemy. Now this is right off topic so lets leave it there.

He did, you know. Read Mein Kampf, he couldn’t have made his intent any clearer if he’d had Alfred Rosenberg walking up and down the Wilhelmstrasse every day with a flashing arrow on his head pointing ‘the Urals thisaway >>>.’

The EU will offer British Prime Theresa May a UK-wide customs union as a way around the Irish backstop issue, but it will have to be negotiated beyond the Withdrawal Agreement as a separate treaty, RTÉ News understands.

The Withdrawal Agreement will contain a specific commitment to a UK-wide customs arrangement by way of a legal article, but that commitment will say that a formal EU-UK customs union will require a separate agreement.

However, the EU, and the Irish Government still insist that a Northern Ireland-specific backstop remains in place, even if a separate UK-wide customs arrangement is negotiated.

London has long sought a UK-wide customs arrangement as a way to avoid customs checks on both the Irish land border and along the Irish Sea.

Re-worked elements of the draft Withdrawal Treaty have been seen by RTÉ News.

They appear to be in conflict with the Mrs May’s demand that the Withdrawal Agreement contain a UK-wide customs backstop that is "legally-binding" and temporary, and her position that a Northern Ireland-specific backstop remains "unacceptable".

It is not clear that London will be content with a legal "commitment" to arrange a UK-wide customs backstop if it has to be negotiated as a stand-alone agreement that sits outside the Withdrawal Agreement.

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Mrs May outlined four steps that the UK was demanding in order for an agreement to be reached, including "the commitment to a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory legally binding, so the Northern Ireland only proposal is no longer needed."

RTÉ News understands that the promise of a UK-wide customs backstop will feature prominently near the top of a re-drafted Withdrawal Agreement, and that previous references to Northern Ireland being part of the EU's "customs territory" will be dropped.

Northern Ireland will be referred to in more oblique terms further down the text, according to a draft.

However, the text will say that in the event of the Northern-Ireland specific backstop coming into effect, a separate annexe will set out how that would work.

That annexe will refer to the EU's Union Customs Code (UCC) applying in Northern Ireland, according to a draft text. These drafts could change further when negotiations resume.

Customs remains the most sensitive issue in the negotiations, with the UK regarding any customs differential between Northern Ireland and the UK as unacceptable, and tantamount to having a customs border along the Irish Sea.

The European Commission has been attempting to "de-dramatise" the issue, by suggesting customs checks on goods between Britain and Northern Ireland could be electronically pre-cleared away from ports, and through the use of scanning and barcode technology.

While the EU has shifted its position to accommodating a UK-wide customs arrangement, it seems certain it will not be agreed and finalised within the Withdrawal treaty.

Officials say such an agreement would be highly complex, and would take some time to negotiate.

"That's complicated," one EU source told RTÉ News. "It's much more complicated than it sounds.

"The first point is the legal basis. You can't do it under Article 50. That's always been our stance. The second point is the practical aspects. It's very complicated to work out all the details in a short period of time. These things need to be negotiated properly."

The EU will want to know which part of the Union Customs Code acquis (body of law) the UK is willing to swallow in order to be part of such a customs union.

In particular, it would have to be decided whether or not the UK will seek to negotiate, sign and implement its own trade deals, or whether it will still avail of free trade agreements (FTAs) the EU currently has with third countries.

The EU will also need to know whether, as it continues to negotiate its own trade deals around the world, it is doing so on behalf of 27 or 28 countries.

The other problem is that the only off-the-shelf arrangement the EU operates, aside from its own, is a customs union with Turkey.

The EU-Turkey customs union does not absolve Ankara of having to carry out checks for regulatory compliance.

Furthermore, Turkey must abide by EU-third country trade agreements, but not in a reciprocal way.

In the case of the EU-Canada trade deal (CETA), Turkey has to allow Canadian goods into its market on the same terms as they enter the EU, but Turkish goods are not given the same privileged access to the Canadian market.

"The EU-Turkey Customs Union has lots of issues," says the source. "Those are bound to be raised. But it's very difficult right now under the pressure of time, in the current context of the [Withdrawal Agreement] negotiations."

The other problem is regulatory compliance.

In order to avoid checks for industrial goods, live animals and food products on the Irish border, there would have to be alignment of the EU's single market rules.

However, a UK-wide backstop does not address that issue, implying that some kinds of checks would be required between GB and Northern Ireland.

EU officials were taken aback by Mrs May's very public new red lines, as there was an expectation that any new ideas would have been presented in private by the British negotiating team, who had been operating with their EU counterparts in highly secretive conditions in the run up to the last summit.

EU sources say member states will want to see firm details of the proposal Theresa May outlined in the House of Commons.

It is expected that the British negotiating team, lead by Mrs May's Europe advisor Olly Robbins, will return to Brussels shortly to details of the new UK demands